UCAIug



UCAIug AMI-Enterprise Face-to-Face Meeting Minutes

EPRI, Palo Alto, CA – 1/6/09

Wayne Longcore – Chair (not in attendance)

Greg Robinson – Vice-Chair

Attendees:

Mark Bonfiglio/Entergy Corp., Julie Brown/Entergy Corp., Bobby Brown/EnerNex, George Cosio/Florida Power & Light Co., Tom Erceg/eMeter, Gary Finco/Idaho National Laboratory, George Flammer/Silver Spring Networks, Gerald Gray/Consumers Energy, Dennis Gray/APS, Erich Gunther/EnerNex, Debra Henderson/OSIsoft, Darren Highfill/EnerNex, Brent Hodges/Reliant Energy, Junaid Hossain/Florida Power & Light Co., Shawn Hu, Michelle Kuiee/OSIsoft, Viola Lee/PG&E, Mike Linn/Delta Products Corp., Dien Ly/APS, Zahra Makoui/PG&E, Wade Malcom/PG&E, John Mani/Comverge, Inc., Jeremy McDonald/SCE, Jerry Melcher/EnerNex, Shelley Moister/Landis+Gyr, James Pace/Silver Spring Networks, David Pejcha/Silver Spring Networks, Glenn Pritchard/PECO, Gary Ragsdale/Southwest Research Institute, Galen Rasche/Southwest Research Institute, Greg Robinson/Xtensible Solutions, Craig Rodine/Grid Net, Inc., Bradley Singletary/EnerNex, Phil Slack/Florida Power & Light Co., Gary Sorkin/NegaWatt, Radha Swaminathan/Florida Power & Light Co., Eva Thomas/Corporate Systems, Rich Tolway/APS, Erfan Ibrahim/EPRI

Webinar: Madhava Sushilendra/EPRI, Randy Lowe/AEP, Ben Rankin/EnerNex, Bon Truong/Sempra, Phil Slack/FPL, Gillis Melacon/FPL, Jerry Casarella/PSEG, Lee King/EPRI, Neil Greenfield/AEP, Brian Smith/EnerNex, Brad Johnson/Oncor, Aaron Snyder/EnerNex

Erfan Ibrahim – Host welcome and Introductions

Greg Robinson – Co-chair group; Introductions

Agenda – Items (refer to agenda); Inquiring minds want to know – any additions to the agenda?

Joe/EPRI – maybe we should discuss scope; and management infrastructure – support management infrastructure

Darren – will also cover in AMI Network tomorrow

Greg – we can cover tomorrow; Erich will cover tomorrow

Greg – review remaining agenda; Any Changes?

NOTE: Agenda Accepted

Greg – Do minutes from last face-to-face in October need any changes? (No response)

NOTE: Last meeting minutes accepted

Greg – minutes and documents are available on SharePoint

Erich - for collaboration and is up under creative license – NIST and EPRI are also working on repository; will cover tomorrow all of the efforts and may combine efforts

Greg – Review presentation of Zigbee + HomePlug Joint Working Group – The Smart Energy Profile (Refer to slide presentation); about 200 people in first meeting; approx. 19 certified products; has large following; approach; utility requirements and CIM;

Jeremy – The focus right now is on residential and light commercial

Joe Hughes - Standards areas need each other – harmonizes as they need to; and build on prior work; ex. IEC 61969, BackNet for Commercial buildings, SAE for vehicles

Jeremy – Proposal for Erich – going through re-organization of UCA is not just limited to AMI-Enterprise; may want to extend the purview and have OpenSG Group and others under it

Erich – Other entities working on other activities and some sensitivity about work being done; need to be sensitive how organized; i.e. CIM; it is extending beyond AMI; will be covering organization tomorrow – some repeat from Knoxville

Erfan – EPRI Common Language Workshops – Next is Jan 13th; have put together a DVD for the event and can download the entire thing on the web; Will have full record available; will support the CIM as much as possible; if have things in the AMI HAN area that needs feedback/exposure – would be a good place to bring to bi-weekly calls; Get with Erich to get on the list if you want

Greg - CIM users group meeting; held at Microsoft conference center had good attendance; had presentations by Gartner/Brad Williams; Increasing rate of growth;

Randy – UNITE – Kevin Angsly is putting together a presentation for Phoenix coming later

Phil Shak/FPL – UNITE – Orlando meeting; about 16 utilities all IT centric around benchmarking; pay Gartner to benchmark against other utilities; not looking to expand much to be able to manage; Had two meetings at CIO level and one meeting in Orlando; Wanting to drive standards vs. have standards made for utilities; have bi-weekly to monthly calls and is more educational; Currently struggle with where to put people when changes are made for SmartGrid

Jerry Gray – USB (Utility Standards Board) - consultant lead by Navigant said that they were asked to provide leadership by several utilities; offshoot of CCRC group; has about 7 utilities identifying niche areas; first is remote disconnect standards (looked at by multi-speak and IEC); are looking at Electric Vehicles and other niche areas;

Member - Have seen a lot of groups trying to drive standards; if UCA is the umbrella then we need to understand the architecture of these groups/standards; these are open standards – there is no obligations to follow these standards; there are not market venders following; once get to vendor level then will have to stick to what they have; How do we address problem collectively? What is the force behind this?

Erich – what we seen with OpenHAN; unless the utilities use in RFQs then will not be used; then this will drive product that will comply

Jeremy – Recommendation: there is another point that is relevant; there are missing pieces of the engineering architecture; the architectural definition required a lot of time to define; there is an enterprise group and AMI-ENT, but may need to be just architecture group

Darren – in AMI-SEC task force had to take a SWAG at what architecture looks like to define security; but gave a starting place; looking to expand from what has been developed; taking a cross-cutting approach; SSR 1.0 just approved; original had two documents with Architectural Description and SSR but combined later all into SSR;

Doug – a lot of work was done for security group, not for security, but that security could be done

Greg – Erich will add this architecture group idea to agenda for tomorrow

Greg - 90% of building blocks are standards based;

Joe – I see application level semantics; NAESB (North American Energy Standards Board – located in Huston TX; prob. Over 100 members; has 4 quadrants – wholesale gas, electric and retail gas, electric) working with NERC and EDI developing semantics for DR and other enterprise level applications; understand that it is tied to NERC and dotted line to FERC;

Jerry Melcher - just about to ballot for DR on how to take DR action and verify result was achieved based on the reward; NERC has set out these products and collecting information; NERC is looking at standards bodies;

BREAK

Greg – Overview of AMI-ENT Team Structure (refer to slide) available on SharePoint;

Use Case team – lead by Terry Mohn (most of work has been done for demand response)

System Requirements team – lead by Joe Zhou

Service Definitions team – lead by Jerry Gray

Greg – AMI-Enterprise Roadmap (refer to roadmap document)

Jerry Gray – reviewing roadmap for this year; for managers explains purpose; work for ; have been posting artifacts to website; will walk members through later today; want people to provide feedback on

Greg – overview of annual calendar/strategy for 2009 (see AMI-ENT 2009 overview document)

Joe Z. – is to present to other utilities so can see where they can contribute/participate and know artifacts to be produced by group; and for utilities to provide input into what they would like to see

Joe Mani – is group going to develop WSDLS/XSDs?

Joe Z. – group is going to develop and in the end all should be aligned welcome other standards bodies; focus is on requirements and need physical designs to move along faster

Greg – will have breakout sessions later for teams; SRS team status and plans

Joe Z./Xtensible Solutions/Consumers – SRS Team status (refer to slides); started development of guiding principles, reference architecture and requirements; goal is to make first draft available by April.

Joe Z. – (AMI-ENT SRS TOC Slide) – system of systems development process; will be a best practices recommendation; reference products coming out of use case team

Joe Z. – (what is AMI-ENT slide) – scope of AMI-ENT – are we covering all enterprise services/systems?

Joe Z. – (AMI-ENT Logical components) –spreadsheet that has more detail located on ; list of AMI enterprise functions and what are the services that they will provide; some are not a business function, but a technical function;

Joe Z. – (Why the AMI-ENT Reference Model slide) – want to be available sooner than later; currently IEC 61968-9 is limited; All information is posted to .

Member – are documents UML diagrams; list of requirements?

Joe Z. – will be a document, but don’t know how much will be in UML form; and used by Jerry’s team; things modeled in UML will be use cases; the swim lanes are not yet standardized and also define boundary of the system

Joe Hughes – Can see where other work has been done that can be tapped into; the utility integration group has been working with BackNet and other bodies that have been developed and would not have to start from scratch; if looking at field applications would look at IEC 61850 – maintenance objects and real-time operations in the field; and be more integrated with distributed energy resources like IEC WG 17; let’s harmonize with current work

Joe Z. – We think this is where we are going especially when documents can be posted to website; want to speed up the process

Greg – completely agree and used SCE’s use cases as a basis; Terry Mohn on use case team will look at gaps and where need to go from here; will be starting a team for DER lead by Frances Cleveland

Doug Houseman – concerned that if doing DER and DR then need to make sure on the same page because DR can be a DER; don’t want to get on two different paths

Joe Z. – will develop a set of use cases around DR and define payload objects and leverage other semantic models discussed by Joe Hughes and develop set of services and schemas; hopefully more vendors will participate in those processes; will be driven by real user needs and work better

Mark – (Overview slide) Purpose: develop use cases and functional requirements for DR systems; Oct 08 use case development begins; February 09 use case dev complete; April complete

Mark – (Status Review slide) – using enterprise architect as tool kit; developed business process model, defined users and developing use cases

Jerry Melcher – (Use cases slide) – high level view of actors and use cases

Doug H. - Work needs to be done on use case diagram as discussed on last phone call to gain adoption

Jerry M – The diagram works as a starting point; Review of “NERC Areas of Interest” slide; Review of “CA Demand response activities: 2008” slide – view of activity in California for DR

LUNCH BREAK

Jerry Gray – Service Definitions Team Status & Plans – posting artifacts on site; Enterprise landscape diagram; Use Cases with Integration requirements (); AMI reference model and logical systems, e.g., Customer Information System.

Jerry – Proposed CIM Changes (refer to “Before” and “After” diagrams) – ComMediaAsset inherits from EndDevice Asset now; MeterControl changed to EndDeviceControl; HANAsset inherits from EndDeviceAsset

Shawn Hugh/Xtensible – Service Pattern and Data Model (refer to slides and ) Design Artifacts contain zip files that include XSDs/WSDLs; Service Naming Patterns – difference between “receive” and “retrieve”; not using “publish” or “subscribe”; using IEC 61968 verb usage recommendation (current and past tense verbs); Overall service design process; questions?

Joe Hughes – Are service definitions consistent with IETF or OMG? Is 61968 consistent with OMG’s use of these terms?

Greg – 61968 are patterned after OAG public domain (and UNC)

Shawn – Integration requirements slide – B1 – Scenario 1 – AMI Meter completes scheduled read request (sequence diagram); service pattern vs. IEC pattern – send and receive have same message for Information Object; Is about 90-95% CIM, but take into consideration Multi-speak

Greg – process that TF is going through will reduce gaps between CIM, multi-speak and IEC

Shawn – System Integration (slide 2) – point to point and ESB (between MDMS and AMI Head End); Services Involved (slide); Service and Operation Naming Convention

Shaw – XML Schema Definition (slide) – follow model driven process; controlled vocabulary; reference base composed of existing languages comprises first layer; second layer is semantic base; third layer is contest/context specific refinement; the layers provide traceability to reference base; implementation model

Shawn – web service definition (slide) using web service definition language (WSDL); defined using CMS standard template (refer to slide); high level view of SOA services

Member: Where are defining scope of the applications (for example MDUS)?

Shawn – going from top-down approach business driven; from integration supporting both with or without ESB; service definition only focused on end-points; Presentation will be posted on SharePoint site

Greg – IEC is a slow process (de jour standard) and hope over to user driven process to create a de facto standard and hope to feed back to IEC

Member: How many of these are being implemented and used by vendors?

Jerry Gray – only thing decided for CMS is that SAP is running in the back office and the process is still in development; work-in-progress; Some vendors would want to do some interoperability testing by the end of 2009; becomes a standard if put into RFP

Member - Are vendors are implementing now?

Doug H. - Many have implemented multi-speak; CIM will implement something that doesn’t smash multi-speak

Jerry G. - What does compliance with multi-speak mean?

Doug H. – If need something ready to go then need multi-speak, long term CIM will be better. To be compliant then have to meet 5 basic groups of their standard – but is no wiggle room

BREAK

Jerry Melcher and Mark van den Brock (reference slides) presentation

Mark – Model views; 4 fundamental DRMS models – business process, requirements, use cases and domain

Jerry – looked at 61968 as model for expressing AMI, want to take effort and submit back to IEC WG 14; slides will be available on website

Mark – Actors defined in making model (refer to slide) for Distributed Energy Resource Control (DERC)

Jerry – context for demand response and have termed DRMS (Demand Response Management System)

Mark – Use case models slide – catalogs primary use cases; model views

Greg – How to get involved?

John Mani – How do we get more vendors involved?

Greg – want to get more participants from all? Erich will cover more tomorrow. This group the utilities have the voting privilege; there is a parent group geared toward vendors

John – need to have vendors involved in developing the WSDLs, etc.

Greg – agreed.

Deborah – Review the logical system models; talk about OPCUA? (Erich will put in touch with people to talk to on this standards)

NOTE: Process for getting involved. Two ways: 1) top-down and 2) bottom up process ; identify areas where work needs to be done (resources); bottom-up - vendors would like to benefit by being involved and have express vendor interest

Jerry – Managers Guide for AMI-Enterprise (refer to slides) – standardized way of getting word out; in draft for participants to provide feedback; would like to have ready end of Jan/1st QTR; targeted to take back to UNITE group (by Randy Lowe). Answer who, what, why, how and where about the group.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download